Talk:Ear
Ear has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: March 25, 2016. (Reviewed version). |
This level-3 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was selected as the article for improvement on 5 August 2013 for a period of one week. |
|
|
The ear in mammals has another vital function - to tell the brain to breathe.
[edit]In mammals the hair cells of the inner ear detect levels of carbon dioxide in the blood, and send this information to the brain. A loss of hair cells in the inner ear can cause death for this reason. Source: https://www.audiologyonline.com/releases/ears-may-hold-answers-to-4038 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.124.246.188 (talk) 18:30, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
- Would you want to add this to the article? Prophylax (talk) 14:05, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Hearing Hole
[edit]How come there is no section about infections of the ear? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.23.105.146 (talk) 03:18, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
- Infections are mentioned briefly in some sections, but there are other pages for them. Prophylax (talk) 14:06, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Too painful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.59.199.204 (talk) 11:58, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
The "Invertebrate hearing organs" section
[edit]Why is the "This section requires expansion" tag present on the "Invertebrate hearing organs" section of the article? According to the section itself, "only vertebrate animals have ears." Assuming this to be correct, it tells me that, if anything, the section does not belong in this article at all! This article is about ears specifically, not hearing organs in general. Why would an almost-completely-off-topic section require expansion? --50.99.8.14 (talk) 05:29, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- Invertebrates have ears, just not in the human-centric sense popular decades ago. They simplest ears are the statocysts found in jellyfish. The correspond to the inner ear in humans (sense of balance). They are part of the jellyfish ear/eye organ. In Bilateria eyes and ears slplit into separate organs, with ears including the lateral line system used by fish to detect pressure waves, as well as organs of hearing and balance. Zyxwv99 (talk) 00:07, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Proposed merge with Ear embryology
[edit]The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Can be readily integrated into main article; as it is stands as an orphan; if necessary can be re-expanded at a later date; would improve the quality of this article to have it in context, and the ear article would be enhanced by the additional information. LT910001 (talk) 08:32, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
- There's no consensus that's emerged so I'm withdrawing this proposal. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:13, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Round window
[edit]Both File:Anatomy of the Human Ear.svg and File:Blausen 0328 EarAnatomy.png are used in the article. Both of these images document a "round window." I was wondering what the purpose of the round window was but the word "round" much less "round window" never appear in the article. --Marc Kupper|talk 06:18, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
- Hi Marc Kupper, if you're still wondering (1+ months out), have a look at the article Round window, and if that doesn't help, Middle ear. Cheers, --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:53, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you LT910001. I had not realized we had an article for the round window. I have updated this article to incorporate mention of the round window and its membrane. --Marc Kupper|talk 03:56, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Irrelevant Advertising
[edit]The final paragraph of Ear -> Structure -> Outer Ear is blatantly an advert. The first sentence or two contain information. The rest is plugging. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christopherreay (talk • contribs) 14:14, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
- I agree, it's promoting Valencell, and the final paragraph should be removed. It was added by CherryCoke027 (talk · contribs) here, who also added this to Biometrics. —Bruce1eetalk 14:31, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
- Blatant spam, use of WP:YOU wording and also not true (pulse oximeters have been used in the earlobe for ages). The user mentioned above is writing about this all over the encyclopedia. Thanks for pointing this out Christopherreay. --Tilifa Ocaufa (talk) 14:44, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
- It looks like this has been removed. Prophylax (talk) 14:07, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Blatant spam, use of WP:YOU wording and also not true (pulse oximeters have been used in the earlobe for ages). The user mentioned above is writing about this all over the encyclopedia. Thanks for pointing this out Christopherreay. --Tilifa Ocaufa (talk) 14:44, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Protection
[edit]Why is this article protected?That man from Nantucket (talk) 06:32, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
- It is protected because it experiences a lot of vandalism from IP editors. As a user with an account, that shouldn't prevent you from making edits to improve the article, although edits that are not in good faith may be reverted. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:36, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
To do
[edit](merged in from deleted old subpage /to do)
history
|
---|
(cur | prev) 2012-10-24T18:34:32 190.58.193.60 (talk | block) . . (199 bytes) (+57) . . (undo) (cur | prev) 2007-07-04T07:52:36 Richard001 (talk | contribs | block) . . (142 bytes) (+94) . . (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 2007-07-04T06:56:46 Richard001 (talk | contribs | block) . . (48 bytes) (+48) . . (←Created page with '*Vestigiality of ears (e.g. muscle in human ear)') (thank) |
- Vestigiality of ears (e.g. muscle in human ear)
- Discuss creating a separate sub-article on human ears so this article can stay focussed.the ear wax is also important thats how we get helicptres
Clinical significance – infections?
[edit]I feel that the different types of otitis should at least be mentioned in the article. However, the Clinical significance section is already too long. What are other editor's opinions on this? --Tilifa Ocaufa (talk) 18:06, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- Agree. A very reasonable suggestion and a big cause of morbidity. If the article is too long, we can always make it shorter by moving or removing some of the "Injury"-related material. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:48, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- I think it deserves to be mentioned in the article with links to separate pages for details. Prophylax (talk) 14:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Possible expansion of Society and culture section
[edit]Hi. I normally do not work on Society and culture sections on anatomy articles but while reading this one something crossed my mind. Would it be appropriate to include a couple of sentences on "ears in fiction"? Something could be said about pointy ears being used to depict humanoid races in fiction such as Spock from Star Trek or elves in many movies and books such as Lord of the Rings. I am having trouble deciding if this is in any way relevant. In the article skeleton we have a "In popular culture" section stating "In Western culture, the skeleton is oftentimes seen as a fearful symbol of death and the paranormal. It is a popular motif in the holiday Halloween, as well as Day of the Dead." All input is welcome. Kind regards JakobSteenberg (talk) 20:57, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks @JakobSteenberg, I think that sounds like a great idea, after all anatomical articles do (rarely) have some social and cultural significance :P. We do in fact have an article Pointy ears here. I think as you suggest a statement about their general use in fiction is a good idea (as opposed to a list of pointy eared characters, which would be "trivia"). --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:07, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
- I tried copy pasting a section in directly from pointy ears. I think it works out; not to much or little. Thanks for your answer. JakobSteenberg (talk) 22:18, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Ear series template
[edit]Cannot see the point in having this template displayed. Info in it is incomplete and all is included anyway in navbox. Doesn't seem to be any such template attached to other articles ? --Iztwoz (talk) 09:26, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- Ah, another one of my ideas. The aim here was to have a small template with links to the main parts of the ear so readers can easily navigate, as opposed to a huge navbox with every article about ears linked. Am very happy for discussion/deletion if that's where consensus swings. At the moment the template is very outsized... maybe removing the image could help reduce its prominence, too. --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:23, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks Tom (LT) - removing the image is a good (first?) step! imesho - would prefer to see that image used in main infobox and the one used for outer ear replaced by the labelled one on the auricle page. Cheers --Iztwoz (talk) 10:31, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Ear/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Saskoiler (talk · contribs) 05:21, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
It's my pleasure to take on a GA review of this article. I will assess one criterion at a time, capturing the assessment in the table which follows. After the table, I'll list items which I believe need attention, if any. -- Saskoiler (talk) 05:21, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Saskoiler thanks very much for your thorough review, I will try to respond point by point below and appreciate the effort you've put into it. Unfortunately I can only really do this justice by starting in a few days time, but rest assured I will be on the case. Sorry about this! --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:32, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- No problem at all. There's no rush. It took me a long time just to get through my first review. I look forward to seeing your updates as time allows. (I see that you've begun already!) Saskoiler (talk) 01:38, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. |
Overall, the prose is at a good level. For a complex topic, most concepts have been communicated with good clarity. However, I have numerous questions and suggestions for improving the prose. See below: "Prose" (Note: These have been addressed.) | |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | Lead - I like much of the structure of the lead, but I think it can be improved to more closely summarize the various article sections. See below: "Lead" (Note: These have been addressed.)
Layout - The organization of body elements is good. The flow from section to section is pretty good. There is good use of "Main article: ___" links. I do have a few questions, however. See below: "External links" and "See also" (Note: These have now been addressed. Thank you.) Words to watch - No issues discovered. Fiction - n/a List incorporation - n/a | |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | There is a "References" section which contains a list of 64 sources supporting inline citations. | |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | I have checked all of the citations for which links to source text have been provided. I confirmed that all of these support the article claims. Sources are reliable, including many textbooks, scientific and medical journal articles, and other books. | |
2c. it contains no original research. | I see no evidence of original research. | |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | There are no copyright violations that I can see. The copyvio tool shows no problems. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | The main aspects of this topic—structure, function, development, clinical significance, society and culture—are addressed by this article. The sections and subsections appear well-planned and clear.
However, my confusion is that the distinction between "ear" vs "human ear" is pretty blurry. Because of this, the scope lines of this article are a bit vague. Therefore, I'm not certain if there are gaps of missing information in several sections. See below: "Ear vs Human ear" (Note: The discussion below has resolved the issue. Thank you.) | |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | There's a good level of detail in this article, and it achieves fairly good balance. The article makes good use of summary style, and refers off to dedicated articles on sub-topics several times. | |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | The article shows no sign of editorial bias. | |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | The article is stable. I see no evidence of an edit war or content dispute... just a steady series of productive edits. | |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | All images are tagged with their copyright status, and there are no apparent licensing issues. | |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | All images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. The various diagrams are of particularly high quality. The image chosen for the top-left of the article is simple and inviting.
Although the article passes the image criteria as-is, I think there is room for future improvements here. In particular, I think the "Society and culture" could be augmented with a set of images. Also, the "Other animals" section could be enhanced greatly by having a gallery of images showing the many variations of ears. | |
7. Overall assessment. | I enjoyed reviewing this article, and I learned a great deal about the ear in the process. Thank you to all contributors of this article.
There are quite a few items to address or discuss below, so I will delay making a final assessment at this time. Hopefully, the issues are not too difficult to address. Update: After many iterations, all issues below have been addressed. I believe that this article now meets the GA criteria, and I am passing this review. Congratulations. I hope that improvements will continue to be made to this article, perhaps someday approaching featured article quality. Future improvements might include:
|
Items to Address
[edit]The following is a list of items which need attention. Please respond to each to let me know when it is resolved, or enter an explanation to justify why it should not be changed.
External links
Addressed - Confirmed
|
---|
|
See also
Addressed - Confirmed
|
---|
This is quite a large number of articles, and I'm not sure this is optimal.
Done Rationalised. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:19, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
|
Ear vs Human Ear
Addressed - Confirmed
|
---|
Some other anatomical articles are split into "part" and "human part" articles. For example, Nose vs Human nose; Eye vs Human eye; Brain vs Human brain; Skin vs Human skin; Tooth vs Human tooth. I'm not suggesting a split of this article (that would be for someone who understands the similarities/differences much better than I), but I do sense some "tension" in this article at times as it seems to drift into "human ear" mode quite a bit. If this is really a human ear article, then I wonder why we're specifying "human" so many times. Similarly, perhaps all mention of other animals should be restricted to the "Other animals" section?
Focusing an article on humans is standard practice for anatomy articles. We have about 5,200 articles on anatomy on Wikipedia, about 20 of which have "Human" subarticles. We generally do this when there is enough content to justify splitting. Humans get primary focus for a number of reasons:
This is not an optimal state of affairs but it is the way that it has worked thus far. It would be next to impossible to cover in the same depth animal anatomy. For that reason we generally have a main section to do with humans, and then an "Other animals" section on other animals, with "Other" implying non-human. Perhaps in the future this section will be expanded. As it is this is part of the current manual of style entry for this: WP:MEDMOS#Anatomy. I hope this reply helps. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:37, 20 March 2016 (UTC) Your arguments are reasonable. The 20/5200 fraction is particularly compelling. I'm convinced. Saskoiler (talk) 04:18, 22 March 2016 (UTC) |
Lead
Addressed - Confirmed
|
---|
|
Prose
- General
Addressed - Confirmed
|
---|
I think if we centralized on just "eardrum" (other than the single case where we provide the alternate term), the article would be clearer... unless there's some technical reason not to.
(Note: there is a case of "secondary tympanic membrane" which needs to be left as-is, I think. It's odd that it is not wikilinked as a full phrase, but it is wikilinked as simply "membrane" later in that sentence.) |
- Lead
Addressed - Confirmed
|
---|
|
- Structure
Addressed - Confirmed
|
---|
|
- Structure - Outer Ear
Addressed - Confirmed
|
---|
|
- Structure - Middle ear
Addressed - Confirmed
|
---|
|
- Structure - Inner ear
Addressed - Confirmed
|
---|
|
- Structure - Blood supply
Addressed - Confirmed
|
---|
|
Question.
Addressed - Confirmed
|
---|
I have arbitrarily decided not to include too much detail on the structure or function of the inner ear (ie the semicircular canals and the cochlea) because it is quite complex. In your opinion, is it worth expanding on this area? --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:17, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
|
- Function - Hearing
Addressed - Confirmed
|
---|
|
- Development
Addressed - Confirmed
|
---|
|
- Clinical significance - Deafness - Congenital abnormalities
Addressed - Confirmed
|
---|
|
- Clinical significance - Injury - Outer ear
Addressed - Confirmed
|
---|
|
- Society and culture
Addressed - Confirmed
|
---|
|
- Other animals
Addressed - Confirmed
|
---|
|
- Citation errors
- Somewhere along the way since this review began, two citation errors got introduced: #17 and #20.
- Done --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:26, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Somewhere along the way since this review began, two citation errors got introduced: #17 and #20.
-- Saskoiler (talk) 05:21, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- I look forward to working with you to get this promoted :). Thanks for taking up this review! --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:31, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- I took the liberty to make a number of copyediting updates when I was fairly confident. Don't hesitate to revert one or more of my changes if I've botched things. -- Saskoiler (talk) 01:42, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- Many thanks. I've grouped together issues that I feel are addressed and collapsed them so I can keep track of what I need to do. Please move bits out if you want to continue discussion. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:37, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- I like the collapsing effect. Please continue to use it for sections which you feel have been addressed. I've glanced at a few of your changes, and it looks good so far. Saskoiler (talk) 16:18, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks very much for your thorough review, Saskoiler. I feel I have addressed your concerns, including the ones which have crept in :). Awaiting your reply, --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:26, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- You've made some great improvements throughout the article. I was able to check and confirm many sections this evening. I've got a couple more to go, and I need to give a final read to cover the various new sections (or significantly reworked/expanded sections). Due to prior commitments, it may take me a couple of days to get back to it. Saskoiler (talk) 05:10, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Not to worry, I'm happy to take a few days off too. --Tom (LT) (talk) 02:54, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- I've now confirmed all sections. I performed a series of copyedits on my final read. I also removed one image (the Vacanti mouse) because my understanding is that the fair use claims are contingent on the image only being used on its own article. It's a good image, but a reader can easily click on the wikilink to find that article if desired. Saskoiler (talk) 04:38, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Not to worry, I'm happy to take a few days off too. --Tom (LT) (talk) 02:54, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- You've made some great improvements throughout the article. I was able to check and confirm many sections this evening. I've got a couple more to go, and I need to give a final read to cover the various new sections (or significantly reworked/expanded sections). Due to prior commitments, it may take me a couple of days to get back to it. Saskoiler (talk) 05:10, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks very much for your thorough review, Saskoiler. I feel I have addressed your concerns, including the ones which have crept in :). Awaiting your reply, --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:26, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- I like the collapsing effect. Please continue to use it for sections which you feel have been addressed. I've glanced at a few of your changes, and it looks good so far. Saskoiler (talk) 16:18, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- Many thanks. I've grouped together issues that I feel are addressed and collapsed them so I can keep track of what I need to do. Please move bits out if you want to continue discussion. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:37, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- I took the liberty to make a number of copyediting updates when I was fairly confident. Don't hesitate to revert one or more of my changes if I've botched things. -- Saskoiler (talk) 01:42, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Hurray! Many thanks for your thorough and systematic review, Saskoiler. --Tom (LT) (talk) 04:45, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
[edit]Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Ear. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304145249/http://www.skincancer.org/skin-cancer-information/basal-cell-carcinoma/the-ears-a-high-risk-area-for-skin-cancer to http://www.skincancer.org/skin-cancer-information/basal-cell-carcinoma/the-ears-a-high-risk-area-for-skin-cancer
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:41, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
[edit]Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Ear. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120930063158/http://php.med.unsw.edu.au/embryology/index.php?title=Hearing_-_Inner_Ear_Development to http://php.med.unsw.edu.au/embryology/index.php?title=Hearing_-_Inner_Ear_Development
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:03, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2019
[edit]This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add the following video in the introductory section:
Lauramanella (talk) 12:34, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
'Society and culture' section text alignment
[edit]Due to the positioning of an image on the 'Society and culture' section of this article, the text has been misaligned. I feel that this is a problem as it spoils the consistency of the article regarding text alignment in my opinion. Xboxsponge15 (talk) 11:10, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Add data on: (overall/total) earcut/ototmisis/ωτότμησις/ωτότμηση as a punishment
[edit]ototmisis (earcut), pronunciation: /ɔːˈtɒ.tmi.sis/
What do you mean by ear in human body?
[edit]In English 2402:3A80:1CA4:C2F1:860F:A41:D52D:5B87 (talk) 01:15, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
Images of Hitler and Trump
[edit]Hello @UpdateNerd -- I saw you reverted my removal of the images of Fred Trump and Adolf Hitler in this article. Could you please explain why these images belong in the article? I see no reference to either of those people in the article, and I do not understand the comparison being made between the two images. Thank you. Cloud atlas (talk) 04:42, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- The Uniqueness section cites a study under the ref "Ears as effective as DNA in identifying people", which notes that "the probability of two individuals having the same type of ear was 0.007." (That's 7 in 1000 or 1 in 142.) An expert quoted by the ref says, "the accuracy of uniqueness is very high. Ears are very unique for each person". This image is an example of two individuals with nearly matching ears despite the low odds. If you can find other famous examples with then I'd support a replacement, but it's hard to think of people that have been so well-covered photographically to produce clear profile shots. UpdateNerd (talk) 06:40, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for explaining, @UpdateNerd. I think that what is problematic about the comparison is that it is essentially original research, and therefore a violation of WP:NOR. You have not included a reliable source that explicitly points out a similarity between the ears of Fred Trump and Adolf Hitler, and therefore, I think that the assertion of them being similar is based on your own assessment of their ears, which is original research on your part (the research being a comparison of people with similar ears). Do you see what I mean?
- And by putting this comparison together of these people, Adolf Hitler and Fred Trump, I think it insinuates a connection or similarity between the two that is politically meaningful, when the content of the article is not about politics at all. Cloud atlas (talk) 21:52, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- Agree. Whatever your opinion of these two birds-of-a-feather, the ear comparison is OR and serves no encyclopedic purpose in this article. Ewulp (talk) 00:37, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- @UpdateNerd -- having not heard from you in a couple days, I removed the photos again on grounds that they are original research. Please let me know if you want to discuss further, and if so, we may have to get the opinions of other editors. Cloud atlas (talk) 04:39, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Agree. Whatever your opinion of these two birds-of-a-feather, the ear comparison is OR and serves no encyclopedic purpose in this article. Ewulp (talk) 00:37, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Structure - potential error in 'Inner ear' subsection
[edit]The 2nd sentence of the 2nd paragraph in the 'Inner ear' subsection of the 'Structure' section says "The inner ear structurally begins at the oval window, which receives vibrations from the incus of the middle ear." However, by my understanding it is the stapes, not the incus, which pushes on the oval window. PeterOut101 (talk) 17:06, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia good articles
- Natural sciences good articles
- GA-Class level-3 vital articles
- Wikipedia level-3 vital articles in Biology and health sciences
- GA-Class vital articles in Biology and health sciences
- GA-Class Anatomy articles
- High-importance Anatomy articles
- Anatomy articles about gross anatomy
- WikiProject Anatomy articles
- GA-Class Animal anatomy articles
- Mid-importance Animal anatomy articles
- WikiProject Animal anatomy articles
- Wikipedia former articles for improvement